I have both games and I would go with Gears 2. Farcry's multiplayer is nowhere near as good as COD, let alone better. It is just not polished, read all the reviews they say that the multiplayer seemed like an afterthought. There should be better controls, custom classes and gun attachments, etc. Farcry's single player was supposed to be the main focus and I hate it. No fast travel and enemies take as many bullets as they do in Gears (on above normal difficulty), very repetitive missions also. Gears is awesome love the story and campaign. Horde is awesome, multiplayer is awesome they just need to get the matchmaking working better. I have been playing Farcry 2 on xboxlive because when I get on Gears 2 it takes 30 minutes to match up a players and get into a game. My connection is good, cable internet straight from modem, just takes forever to match up teams for some reason.
Explain where the replay value is in Farcry. Gears has HORDE, and a much more enjoyable campaign, and good multiplayer with matchmaking. Farcry has a one and done campaign, generic multiplayer, and a map editor that probably won't ever get used to its potential because there are not many people playing the game and no good way to advertise your map, and user hosted ranked matches are a load of crap (90% of the time the host wins because teams are stacked). Not to mention Gears has a developer and publisher that will support the game well, with updates and DLC. Farcry 2 is not gonna be supported as well because not as many people will be playing it and they have alot of other games to work on and support. I almost regret buying Farcry2, should have got Fallout 3 or COD:WAW
With that said, I do hope that people on here that are fans of Farcry 2 will get on Farcryhub and get things rolling so the game can have some hope. I want there to be good maps and a good community but it will be hard and there isn't barely anything going on at Farcryhub at the moment.
Just to let you know, triple posting..uber bad. Double posting is bad, you can and usually are going to be infracted, but triple post, damn...there is an edit feature in the lower right hand side of your post. If you need to say something more, please use that. Anyway to address your points: Farcrys campaign is very innovative, thats the idea. It's about recon first, gunghoe firefights second. If you find it boring, thats your opinion, I won't argue that. Farcrys multiplayer is great. Period. CoD's multiplayer sucks. Period. This is my opinion, and quite a few other peoples. CoD is boring and repitive, requires very little skill (41 kills/8 deaths in the beta playin 3v8 on roundhouse the map everyone goes under, they had 3 level 44's, and I never played CoD4 more than once), and rewards players way too much for playing much longer. It's not enough that they learn how to play better, but they get way to powerful perks/guns? Perks and guns suck and are stupid honestly. Thats actually one of the negatives about FC. Now to actually address FC's multiplayer. Their is the gun upgrades, so yeah by the same respect if you play longer, you get rewarded. But after upgrading my commando, I still use the original AK over the new whatever gun I got, so it's not quite the same. FC is about team play, picking you guys up, co-ordinating strikes, callout of snipers, it's a game where you have people actually using all of the classes. You need to actually take cover and heal, fire burns across the grass, the game is VERY unique in regards to multiplayer. CoD5 IS CoD4..so why waste the money? I still say gears is the better game to get, but people started selling FC short because of all this bandwaggon false-hope fanboyism displayed towards the game. People heard rumors, and elaborated and took off with them. When the game didn't give them everything plus more, they said it sucked. Honestly I hated the game before I bought it, for all the bandwaggon people pissing me off. But I actually played the game and realized it was better than I thought it would be. I'm a harsh critic.